Evidence for macro-evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

And lots of generations, but there were lots of generations. That's the point you seem to miss, or ignore, or deny.

Humans didn't come from bacteria. We come from earlier apes. Those apes come from earlier primates. Those primates from earlier mammals. And so forth. Just from the earlier apes to humans we are talking about 100,000 generations and we're not that different from them.

And so forth... right back to??

It doesn't matter how many generations you have, you cannot breed a human from bacteria, by selecting broken genes in the single celled bacteria like organism, which ToE holds to be our common ancestor.

You need the opposite phenomena which, unlike micro-evolutionary mutations, has never been observed, introduction of entirely novel functional proteins/ cell types/ major organs etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it's not really the same thing. I have dark brown curly hair. My parents have the same hair colour but neither of them have the curls, so that means the switch for the genes for curls was switched from OFF to ON for me.

That's how genetics works, not your weird idea for how genetics works. Genes are not lost or broken, evolution does not 'regress'.

OK, you're talking about your particular combination of genes- from your parents where dominant and recessive can combine to give you something different. They are all pre-existing genes though, not novel mutations in your own genes- not 'evolution' macro or micro

Macro evolution has progressed, but we only see regression in micro-evolution (or stasis), penguins will never learn to fly, blind cave fish will never regain their sight.

again this is regardless of whether those regressions are an advantage or not, they are still genetic regressions which go in the exact opposite direction needed for macro evolution to create a human from a single celled bacteria like organism. i.e. not by simply breaking things..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Going to run for now but will try to respond to any posts- appreciate the thoughtful debate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, you're talking about your particular combination of genes- from your parents where dominant and recessive can combine to give you something different. They are all pre-existing genes though, not novel mutations in your own genes- not 'evolution' macro or micro

Macro evolution has progressed, but we only see regression in micro-evolution (or stasis), penguins will never learn to fly, blind cave fish will never regain their sight.

again this is regardless of whether those regressions are an advantage or not, they are still genetic regressions which go in the exact opposite direction needed for macro evolution to create a human from a single celled bacteria like organism. i.e. not by simply breaking things..

But again: just saying they're regressions does not mean they are. You just saying it is does not show that it is so. You've not once shown an example of a 'broken gene' for one thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

But again: just saying they're regressions does not mean they are. You just saying it is does not show that it is so. You've not once shown an example of a 'broken gene' for one thing.

Adam was a "mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God" wasn't he?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Adam was a "mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God" wasn't he?

No.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And so forth... right back to??

First lets talk about that last 100,000 generations. Do you deny that as well, or...

It doesn't matter how many generations you have, you cannot breed a human from bacteria, by selecting broken genes in the single celled bacteria like organism, which ToE holds to be our common ancestor.

You need the opposite phenomena which, unlike micro-evolutionary mutations, has never been observed, introduction of entirely novel functional proteins/ cell types/ major organs etc.

are you only obsessed with trying to use the most extreme difference so you can apply your incredulity?

 

[NxNW]

And this is with just 2 mutations- the fish gaining all the mutations required for sight by random mutation in the first place is mathematically absurd.

The eye has evolved a couple dozen times independently. Best calculations are a few hundred thousand generations at most from a single light sensitive cell. That's because it's not just random; it's driven by natural selection.

 

[BCP1928]

Going to run for now but will try to respond to any posts- appreciate the thoughtful debate.

Maybe it's time to think about telling us where you're going with this. I don't see any point in discussing genetics with you; with respect to the terms you are using we are not even speaking the same language. But what is your intention? Suppose you manage to demolish the theory of evolution. What's next?

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose you manage to demolish the theory of evolution. What's next?

Nightmares?

 

[BCP1928]

Nightmares?

When a creationist says something like "the theory of evolution requires..." or "evolutionists tell us..." you can be the ranch that whatever follows will make it into a fib.

 

[Estrid]

When a creationist says something like "the theory of evolution requires..." or "evolutionists tell us..." you can be the ranch that whatever follows will make it into a fib.

Why do they do it?

 

[Estrid]

When a creationist says something like "the theory of evolution requires..." or "evolutionists tell us..." you can be the ranch that whatever follows will make it into a fib.

Why do they do it

 

[BCP1928]

Why do they do it

Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.

Evolution makes men out of monkeys.

Growing up, we played on the monkey bars, used a monkey wrench, and in between that, just generally monkeyed around.

 

[Estrid]

Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.

That's not much of an excuse for dishonesty

 

[Yttrium]

Evolution makes men out of monkeys.

Growing up, we played on the monkey bars, used a monkey wrench, and in between that, just generally monkeyed around.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

 

[Shemjaza]

e.g. Blind cave fish, lactose tolerance, white fur on polar bears.

Any time random mutation destroys the function of a gene, it's a regression in the functional information of that gene.
Yes it may have a neutral or even advantageous effect in a niche environment, but still an evolutionary regression of the genetic code- a dead end,
the functions can only be lost by this process, not built.

You cannot create a human from a single celled bacteria, by merely destroying functions in the bacteria.

There is a crucial distinction between what constitutes a selectable advantage, and what constitutes a genetic regression. One mutation may be an example of both at the same time.

If a genetic mutation destroys the ability of a polar bear to create pigment in it's fur, that may certainly be an advantage in a niche arctic environment, but the bear has lost functional information in the genetic sense. Not gained it, and evolution requires the gain of vast volumes of new functional genetic code, not merely the loss of it..

Likewise if random decay causes the exhaust of a car to fall off, you will have a faster, lighter, more fuel efficient car.
And this is not a regression on a race track.

So this is similarly an example of random 'mutation' providing an advantage in a niche environment- and we have lots of those.

But you understand why you cannot extrapolate this mechanism into an explanation for the exhaust itself, far less the rest of the car.

This is all meaningless until you can actually objectively measure the Creationist versions of "specificity" and "information".

Until then it's just vibes and feelings that evolution doesn't work.

 

[BCP1928]

This is all meaningless until you can actually objectively measure the Creationist versions of "specificity" and "information".

Until then it's just vibes and feelings that evolution doesn't work.

First he has to assign meaning to those terms and he hasn't done it yet.

 

[driewerf]

Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.

They're.
But that aside, were is the time that we were considered "mission fields"? They have given up.